lotrfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:N3rus
Welcome to new friends and thanks for the welcome. I am looking forward to participating in the LOTR WIKI. Please feel free to post your welcomes and join me in friendly banter below. Welcoming Friends } Razor77 16:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC) I like the Tengwar sample in the welcome template, purely as an example of the beauty and majesty of the language, but being a true libertarian, I am a sworn enemy to its meaning. Could we not have some other sample that is more politically neutral?--N3rus 07:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Just out of curiosity, what does it say? Could you please translate it for those of us who have no gift for languages?--Arwen Skywalker 03:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC) It is the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it translates as follows: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." You might think it strange that I should oppose this, but my reasons are very complex and very political. Consequently, this is no forum for their expression. I was just expressing a wish that Tolkien's beautiful language shouldn't be tainted by reference to such an infernal document. Indeed, the UDHR is exactly the kind of document that I would expect Sauron to write. In fact, it recalls to my mind the subtle working of Sauron on the mind of Ar-Pharazôn the Golden, the last king of Númenor. (See paragraphs 44 through the first sentence of 47 in Akallabéth.—N3rus 07:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC) I see. Perhaps you could write something in Tengwar to be used instead of the sample you dislike? Or maybe put a quote from the movies or books into Tengwar?--Arwen Skywalker 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC) :An excellent idea, but I doubt that I am up to it.—N3rus 06:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC) thumb|Thanks for your contributions! I award ye this star On work needing to be done In perusing the , I have noticed many references in the list for things that will probably never have a page in LOTR WIKI—e.g. Led Zeppelin, Star Trek, and Lex Luthor. Some of this seems to be from folks creating Wiki links for just about anything (see The Hobbit article) without regard for whether it is LOTR subject matter. Is it permissible to go to these various pages and just dereference the items so that they will drop out of the Wanted Pages list? This would seem to be a reasonsable method of cleaning things up a bit and revealing those things that truly are on-topic wanted pages--N3rus 06:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC) That's what I've been doing, though I try to give the links the benefit of the doubt. So I really hope it's permissible. :-) --Arwen Skywalker 19:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC) On going over to the Dark Side Hey there N3rus, I just wanted to bring to your attention this discussion and see what your opinion of it was. Keep up the great work. --Hyarion 02:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC) I've posted my answer.--N3rus 07:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Banter Please feel free to comment on my contributions and proposed efforts. I would also like to hear about your Tolkien favorites, but be prepared to give your reasons.--N3rus 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) I read through the Tolkien vs. Jackson page; you seem to have put a lot of work into it. The ways you're dividing and reorganizing it seem quite logical. The comparison chart was an excellent idea. The article as a whole was very interesting reading but I will admit to being startled by the harshness of some of it. One example: "it seems silly and juvenile that they should bring this about through emotional manipulation instead of rational deliberation. (Could it never be that the undertaking of war result from rational discussion and calm decision-making? Need it always be due to base emotions?) In any event, the overall effect of this sequence of events was to make the Ents look foolish and almost stupid instead of the wisest and most thoughtful and rational creatures of Middle Earth." While I agree with your opinion, I think perhaps it could have been phrased in a more neutral fashion, possibly letting the reader draw their own conclusions. Another example: "Far from the self-possessed and calculating wizard of the story, Gandalf becomes, at one point, crazed and panic-stricken." Perhaps it is merely a personal blindness, but I never thought of Gandalf as crazed/panic-stricken. (Very worried, yes, but not crazed. We know from the books that Gandalf is not immune to human-like emotions.) It took me a minute to figure out what scene you were referring to. Perhaps the article could use a more specific description/example. "While Tolkien's character was strong, bold, and independent—she was over 2,500 years old in his story—the screenplay made her over into a frail and dependent child who was easily manipulated by a selfish father." Perhaps this is merely a modern perspective, or just feminine intuition, but I never thought of Arwen in the book as strong, bold, and independent; she merely believed in the man she loved. I didn't see her as manipulated in the movies, only as a lady who faced a horrible choice, made a mistake, and then did her best to rectify the mistake and explain her choice to her father. I never thought of Elrond as selfish either, just convinced that he knew what was better for his daughter. As a side note, I believe Aragorn is aware that Arwen is leaving Middle-earth, or at least he's hoping she is, as that is what he tells Éowyn when she asks who gave him the evenstar pendant. "Aragorn does stay true to Arwen even as she is, without his knowledge, in process of forsaking Middle-earth and her oath to him." Well, now that I've written you a book ;-), I'll just tell you that the majority of what you've done here has been well-written and that I'm glad you contribute to this online expansion of Tolkien's work.--Arwen Skywalker 21:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC) :Arwen, thank you very much for your input. I value all criticism that helps improve the result, and your throughts are quite helpful. I tried to strike a balance by saying such things as "Despite the differences, The Lord of the Rings motion pictures are beautiful and stunning epic movies that tell a great story in their own right." While I do not like some of the changes that were made, I still love the movies. If there are scenes that I just want to turn away from, there are also scenes that I want to watch again and again. I will do what I can to smooth out the rough edges.—N3rus 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC) :I want to describe the clear differences in the characters between book and movie, but it must be done without use of opinionated commentary. The scene in which Gandalf grabs Frodo in the dark in Bag End shows him in a much different emotional state than he exihibits at that same point in the book. I must also remember that the article is not meant to castigate the screenwriters and second-guess their decisions. There are some of their decisions that I strongly dislike and wish they had made differently, but the article is not intended to be my opinion of the value of those decisions. It must simply describe them.—N3rus 10:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC) :Compare the scene in the movie where Gandalf had just returned from the White City with the following from the same scene in the book: "Gandalf was thinking of a spring, nearly eighty years before, when Bilbo had run out of Bag End without a handkerchief. His hair was perhaps whiter that it had been then, and his beard and eyebrows were perhaps longer, and his face more lined with care and wisdom; but his eyes were as bright as ever, and he smoked and blew smoke-rings with the same vigour and delight." I need to come up with words to describe the clear difference between the two scenes.—N3rus 10:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Always glad to help a fellow writer. And I do see how, in comparison, Gandalf could seem panic-stricken. The book just says that Gandalf seems careworn and older at the point of his arrival; perhaps the screenwriters felt that the Ring's power and evilness needed to be pointed out through Gandalf's concern. Of course he calms down and has tea immediately after he finds out its the One Ring, so I could be wrong. ;-) --Arwen Skywalker 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC) I have been very busy both at work and at home these past few weeks so that I have been unable to contribute anything here. A major project has just been completed this past week, so I can return to more enjoyable activities. I do have a major computer upgrade pending this next week that may set me back some, but I hope to get it done quickly. (Being a "techie", I am having to perform major hardware and software upgrades to keep myself up to date on current technologies, so this upgrade will be a major one.) One way or another, I hope to return to making some meaningful contributions here.—N3rus 06:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC) I'm really looking forward to your proposed article on the symbols and lore of Middle-earth. I hope you get a chance to create it soon.--Arwen Skywalker 04:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC) :Thank you very much for your interest. I have already started on the text for that effort on my local computer. Now that I have completed hardware and software upgrades on my computer, including installing Windows Vista, I am ready to get back to work on many projects including LOTR WIKI.—N3rus 07:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC) :The inspiration for that article idea is the reference to Barahir's Ring in The Two Towers movie. There is a rich body of lore connected with that reference that the moviegoer never learns. Indeed, even the casual reader of Tolkien probably never comes across the story or Beren or his father, Barahir, and never learns anything about the significance of that ring. It is such things as this that I would like to bring out. My problem is that it is hard for me to stop once I get going.—N3rus 09:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks! Just wanted to thank you directly for your comments on the lore templates. Razor77 21:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Material to be Used Later This is stuff that I am going to use in another place later. There are problems in the screenplay with the events in Osgiliath. That city was divided by Anduin the eastern shore of which was held by the enemy. In the book, the Rangers of Ithilien did not cross at Osgiliath but well to the north. There is also the problem of the old sewer by which the hobbits returned back across the river. Why would a sewer cross under instead of empty into the river? And why would not the tunnel entrance on the eastern shore be subject to discovery at any moment by the multitude of Orcs there thus making its use very dangerous. While Frodo was at Osgiliath in the movie, he offers the Ring to the Witch King and is only prevented from surrendering it by a flying tackle by Sam. In the book, none of this happens. It should also be pointed out that at this point, Sauron has every reason to believe that the Ring is in the possession of Gandalf, Aragorn, or perhaps Denethor, and his plans were driven by this assumption. The Ring's sudden appearance on the borders of his land still in the hands of the hobbit would have completely altered his plans. All of his forces would have been unleashed to capture it and the halfling too. Certainly, the Ringwraiths would have at least been sent to recover it. The idea that his plans would not have been altered under the circumstance seems ludicrous. In the book, the closest similar exposure of the Ring this late in the story is when the Witch King senses "a power" in Morgul Vale when he is leading his troops to battle. That power, of course, was the Ring that was nearby at the time. It should also be clear that because Faramir, in the movie, observed Frodo offering the ring to the Witch King, he would undoubtedly regard sending him on his way through Morgul Vale to Cirith Ungol as too great a danger to risk the Ring. There is no doubt that after such an occurrence, he would have been even less likely to let Frodo go. —N3rus 13:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC) On "Differences . . ." Hi: I'm new to this site -- and actually new to any kind of site like this. So I hope and trust that this message is going to N3rus. I'm Belmont4 -- pleased to meet you -- and I wrote a post in response to the Differences article. It's here: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Belmont4/More_on_films%27_departure_from_Tolkien. I guess any kind of article generates controversy. But I was a little shocked that people dismissed what was said in Differences, and said it should just be deleted. I have a very different idea of how to deal with people with whom I have some disagreements. In fact, the Differences piece was entirely true as it pertained to the differences. Whether ''all ''LOTR readers were disappointed by the films -- whatever. I don't want to say "but" here. This is just an idea I'm throwing out. There's a whole other layer to the departures made by Peter Jackson, et al. What are the implications when you have Elrond lying and deceiving? Not to mention saying words that in the book were said by Saruman. What does it mean when you see the ring around Frodo's neck all the time? And it doesn't drive Gollum absolutely bonkers? I think the part on the characters is a good such step back to look at the deeper implications. Some of the insights were terrific, and things I hadn't thought of, like the discussion of Samwise. Sam was there for more than his bromance with Frodo. He understood the importance of the quest, and therefore the necessity of protecting and aiding the Bearer. This leads to him doing amazing things, like battling Shelob. I'll throw in another concept, or unifying idea. In literature there are heroes and leaders. Sometimes rolled into one. Neo in the Matrix was a hero, but not a leader. Morpheus was both. In LOTR, Elrond is a leader, but not a hero, at least not at the time of the story. Aragorn and Gandalf are both. Faramir is both. Frodo is a hero, and not really a leader. Even on the flight to Rivendell, it's Merry who is kind of organizing things. This is also seen in the Scouring of the Shire, which is led by Merry and Pippin, though they ask Frodo for approval of their decisions. I digress. Having Aragorn set out with his two companions on the Paths of the Dead robs his character of this aspect, of leading people by the strength of his will. One more thing I didn't mention in my post -- a real WTF moment -- when Theoden -- twice, I think -- says something like, the day may come when we will break our oaths, but that day is not today. So he's saying, yeah, I made an oath, but it doesn't mean that much. This is a very different world. Why didn't the let him say something like, "Now is the hour come, Riders of the Mark, Sons of Eorl!" That has a ring to it. Take care, Belmont4 (talk) 04:01, June 9, 2015 (UTC)